Such a frustrating disappointment

Boring, long, and too preachy.

A Disappointing Continuation

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

Let me first say, that I had a fine afternoon watching this movie: it's entertaining, fast-paced, romantic and visually beautiful, with some great settings and costumes. I agree with some of the critics that the DVD technically was rather poor: grainy and with some of the coloring a bit weird, but this wasn't that bad that it spoiled the fun.Then there was the rare joy of seeing so many great actors together: Hugh Grant, Michael York, Claire Bloom and Oliver Reed, to name a few of the most famous ones. But here I have to come up with my first reservations. While Oliver Reed delivers a fine (but rather small) performance as the odious Sir Philip Gage and Claire Bloom gives a spicy rendering of Lady Darlington, the part of Michael York as Charles II (convincing as it is) is extremely small. And Hugh Grant (at age 29 still many movies and some 5 years away from breaking through with "Four Weddings"), hadn't matured yet to such a great actor back then. Besides that, he also fell victim to a curious whim of the writer, who gave him, the undeniable hero of this tale, hardly three whole sentences to say. While the director made him act as a silly 17th century English version of Zorro (including a preposterous black mask that couldn't fool a blind bat) and let him have a hairdo that may have been meant to look like a romantic highway-mannish ruffle, but turns out as something the cat dragged in.The story is a romantic fiction within a historical context (the court of Charles II right after the Restoration) and is based on one of the zillion novels by Barbara Cartland. That's not necessarily bad, the popularity of her work at least proves that her novels are compelling enough to please countless readers and I guess one could turn this particular story into a reasonably adequate screenplay. The result however is a bit uneven, as if more than one person worked on it. Many of the dialogues are awkward and stiff (and unfortunately these involve all of Hugh Grant's). At other points however they're actually very crisp and intelligent (for example the dialogues between the king's arrogant and machiavellistic mistress Barbara Castlemain and her slimy partner-in-crime Rudolph Vyne, as well as the snide comments of auntie Darlington or the flirtatious innuendo's of the king). It's the same with the action: at times plain silly and hardly living-up to the standards of an average episode of old TV-series like Robin Hood or Ivanhoe (like the clumsy "raids" of highwayman Hugh Grant and his comrades), at other times however very thrilling and involving (like all the scenes with Lady Castlemain, Lord Rudolph or Sir Gage). While the supposed love-scenes between Hugh Grant and Lysette Anthony are rather up-tight and square (what on earth they are supposed to see in each other is beyond me, it's like little Miss Goody Two-shoes meets Simon the Stiff), every scene with Emma Samms is steaming with passion and barely restrained rage. And the grand finale, where our hero (Grant) escapes his confinement in the dead-cell to jump on the scaffold and save his beloved from the executioner, must be the most breathtakingly last-minute rescue in the history of historical movies, the axe literally fails her head and neck by an ear's length.Alas for Hugh Grant-fans: he is definitely not the star of this movie (and he actually looks as if he couldn't have cared less!). Neither is Lysette Anthony (way too virtuous and boring!). To me the biggest surprise is Emma Samms, she looks beautiful (hurray for 17th century corsets, and miss Samms DOES fit in her's stunningly!!) and her acting is top-notch! And Christopher Cazenove is equally great with his pretentious slimy fake-charms and his ruthless conniving.All in all: no Oscar-winning material here, but with all it's flaws still very entertaining. I rank it 7 out of 10 (and a 10+ for Emma Samms!)

This is a CAUTION to any considering the purchase of this title. My comments should not be taken as critical of the production. The key here is to carefully preview any copy of this title marketed by "EXTREAM DIGITAL MEDIA". I picked up a VHS copy at a video close out store. The sleeve had clear images of the principal actors, but the video quality was so poor I could not view the film. Thus my score should NOT be considered as valid. I had to enter something to continue. The video is not viewable, the quality of the image is so poor one could imagine it was made by using a cheep video camera to copy the film from a TV screen. There was not sufficient detail to identify the actors. Copies from other sources may provide a perfectly clear image, but not the copy in my possession distributed by Extreme Digital Media, bar code 674639501834

Although filmed in 1988, this British made-for-TV movie captures the look and feel, the melodrama and romance, even the stagy lighting, of a big-budget 1930s Hollywood swashbuckler. By 1930s standards, it is a first-rate film. By today's standard, well, that's not really a fair standard to judge it by. It lacks the scale and fancy visual effects of "Braveheart," or "Gladiator," but in its quirky old-fashioned way, it is a better movie than either of them. And it is miles better in every possible way (including historical accuracy) than the egregious BBC/A&E "Charles II" mini-series (USA title "The Last King"), set in the same time period, with many of the same characters, that was broadcast in 2004."The Lady and the Highwayman" is based on a Barbara Cartland romance novel, and set in Restoration England of the 1660s. Yet with a shift of locale, and a slight re-write, it could just as well be a western. Think "Zorro." Indeed it borrows lots of bits and pieces from classic westerns -- such as Hugh Grant's character jumping from atop a 30 foot wall on to the back of his horse."The Lady and the Highwayman" was filmed in England, using several real period castles and manor houses as locations. Both the detailed sets and the lavish costumes mesh seamlessly with the period buildings. The costume department did a great job, as much with the soldiers' uniforms, armor, and weapons, as with the courtiers' finery.The cast is excellent, and the dialog, by Terence Feely, was well written. 28-year old Hugh Grant looks young and suave, but doesn't say a whole lot. The star is young Lysette Anthony, then 25, and she is terrific. Oliver Reed is a menacingly villainous Phillip Gage. Michael York is a dashing King Charles II.I just saw the film on a $1 DigiView DVD sold by WalMart. It was definitely not a digital transfer -- but its graininess and off colors actually enhanced the impression of its being a 1930s film, rather than 1980s. It's no classic, but I enjoyed watching it, and I've seen plenty worse. 6/10.For another quirky and retro view of 17th century England, check out "Winstanley" by Kevin Brownlow.

I loved this movie growing up, it was a lot of fun and always amusing to know you were a fan of Hugh Grant before he became famous ;) This movie was released as "SilverBlade" in Australia where I grew up and first saw it, and it wasn't until I came to the United States that I found out it had another name. So if there are any Aussies out there wondering if this is the same movie - it is - I have seen both SilverBlade and The Lady & The Highwayman and they are exactly the same.